Julius Genachowski isn't the only member of the Federal Communications Commission who is leaving the FCC. Commissioner Robert McDowell also announced his departure a couple of days ago after serving since 2006. The Republican McDowell and Democrat Genachowski found common ground on numerous issues and praised each other on their way out, but the two were also at loggerheads in some high-profile cases.

The biggest in McDowell's mind was the net neutrality debate, the commissioner told Ars on Friday. The FCC in 2010 approved net neutrality rules that prevented Internet service providers from blocking lawful traffic and banning discrimination against competitive services running over the ISP's networks.

Wireless providers were exempt from the rules, angering many consumer advocates. McDowell, though, didn't want neutrality rules at all, and he said that net neutrality was the biggest failure under Genachowski.

"I just think it was needlessly disruptive and a diversion of FCC resources. But it remains to be seen what the courts think of it," McDowell said.

He elaborated:

First of all, I've been a strong advocate for a free and open Internet. What I opposed really focused on, first of all, there is no market failure that needed to be addressed. Second, the FCC did not have the statutory authority to do what it did. Third, if there had been a problem there were laws already on the books that would have addressed the problem.

There wasn't a problem before the rules and there's not a problem with any danger of a closed Internet in this country after the rules. For those who think the rules have preserved an open Internet, that's sort of like a rooster taking credit for the sunrise.

When asked if net neutrality has caused any harm to businesses, McDowell said it's not clear yet. There's been no obvious harm, he said, because the FCC hasn't yet taken any enforcement actions against companies for violating the rules. However, he said capital expenditures in broadband have remained flat even as the economy grew slightly between 2010 and 2011. It's too early to tell if that is in any way connected to net neutrality affecting wired service but not wireless.

"Spending has always gone up unless there is an economic downturn, and between 2010 and 2011 there was no economic downturn, there was slow economic growth," McDowell said.

He argued increases in network efficiency wouldn't explain the slow spending, because networks are always getting more efficient. "There's a shift to expenditures into the wireless space and one could argue that's natural progression, and it probably is," McDowell said. "But did that come at the expense of deploying fiber because fiber is subject to the net neutrality rules while wireless is not? We don't know the answer to that, those are questions I'd like to have answered."

The FCC's biggest success

As for the FCC's biggest success under Genachowski, McDowell pointed to the 2011 reform of the Universal Service Fund. He called this "the first federal entitlement reform since the 1996 Welfare Reform Act was passed by the Republican Congress and signed by Bill Clinton."

The reform involved changing a fund designed to subsidize rural phone companies. "We eliminated duplicate subsidies for more than one company serving the same area," McDowell said. "And we introduced competitive market incentives such as reverse auctions for the awarding of some of the subsidies. And then most importantly, we repurposed it to support broadband."

McDowell acknowledged that Genachowski probably wouldn't cite the fund's reform as his greatest achievement, yet Genachowski worked across party lines to get it done in a 3-1 vote.

"Julius worked hard, relentlessly to find consensus," McDowell said. "He took a risk in trying to make that happen. There were a lot of constituencies that have interests in the universal service program and it was fraught with political peril. He had the courage and the perseverance to make it happen."

Many of Genachowski's critics from the more liberal side of the aisle criticize him for being too conciliatory to corporate interests, favoring industry over consumers as we noted in our story Friday. But Genachowski gets criticism from multiple angles. TechFreedom, a conservative tech policy think tank, said "With the support of the equally personable Republican Rob McDowell, Genachowski's legacy could have been progress on a range of issues where broad consensus exists, like eliminating the regulatory barriers that slow down broadband deployment."

In TechFreedom's view, that didn't happen. The organization blasted the net neutrality decision and said Genachowski should have cleared more spectrum for mobile broadband providers.

However, McDowell praised Genachowski for being "a gentleman to work with. He was able to get past our disagreements quickly and move on to the next issue. And that's how it should be." And in a statement about McDowell's departure, Genachowski returned the compliments. “Rob McDowell has been an extraordinary colleague—deeply knowledgeable about the vital and growing communications and tech sector, creative, wise, and a great partner on the Commission. ... I’m proud that Rob is both a colleague and a friend."

"The vast majority of what we do is unanimous," McDowell said, although he expressed hope that the FCC will place fewer restrictions on mergers in the future. Under Genachowski, the FCC blocked the AT&T/T-Mobile acquisition and placed conditions on others.

"I think some of the merger conditions that were forced upon companies had nothing to do with the merger," McDowell said. "I look at it as 'what merger-specific harms are coming about' and our conditions should be narrowly tailored and perhaps sunsetted to address those harms. For instance, the Comcast/NBCUniversal merger had a lot of conditions in there that were not related at all to the transaction. But others, we just saw T-Mobile/MetroPCS a few days ago, that one had a minimal amount of conditions and was handled well."

One thing the next commissioner has to oversee is an auction to repurpose TV broadcast spectrum. That spectrum could be sold to wireless carriers for exclusive use, and some of it could go to unlicensed users to improve technologies like White Spaces. McDowell thinks the FCC will be able to appease both the carriers and White Spaces technology proponents.

"I've been a strong proponent of unlicensed use of spectrum, especially the unused TV White Spaces," he said. "But I think the statute really compels us to auction what we harvest from the broadcasters, unless there is some technical reason to not do so. The short answer is that means there will still be plenty of leftover spectrum for White Spaces use. There will still be these gaps for unlicensed use. I think it could be a win-win scenario, I don't think its a zero sum game that licensed wins, unlicensed loses, which is how some people are trying to paint it."

President Obama will have to nominate replacements for both Genachowski and McDowell. The first quality that the replacements should have, McDowell said, is "a deep and detailed understanding of the issues that the FCC will face, substantive expertise first and foremost." Second, he hopes the replacements will be "patient" with the fast-moving marketplace, and let it run on its own instead of imposing extensive regulations.

"None of us can predict the future when it comes to innovation," he said. "The last thing you want is making a rule which freezes in place the status quo, which will likely change rapidly. Sometimes regulators succumb to the temptation of thinking they are smarter than the marketplace or thinking that a nudge from government will produce a better outcome than the market would have delivered on its own without interference."

McDowell, the lobbyist?

What's next for McDowell? It won't be lobbying the FCC, at least not right away. "I can go work pretty much anywhere but there are rules barring your contact or advocacy with the FCC," he said. "There is a two-year outright ban on advocacy, and other Obama administration restrictions on lobbying."

Former Republican FCC Chairman Michael Powell is now CEO of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association. Given McDowell's political views and experience, a similar lobbying job could be in his future, but he said that he has not yet decided what he'd like to do.

"I honestly do not know," he said. "There's not a job I'm gunning for. I'm starting with a blank sheet of paper."

What a fool. I have fiber now. It's grossly overpriced. Why does he act like increased fiber deployments that can be saddled with throttling or outright blocks on competitive services, all for insane prices is a good thing? It's no different than the situation with LTE. They call it a sign that the market is so competitive and doesn't need regulation, ignoring the fact that it costs 100 bucks a month and will cost 30 bucks a month in the rest of the world. I'd rather have cable broadband and 3G speeds for sane prices than fiber and LTE that costs as much as a car payment and is saddled with anti-competitive crap.

Sounds like his market views and loyalty to lobbies are just as broken as the rest of his party's peers'.

The country that brought the world the Internet slids ever more into its backwaters thanks to these people and their corporate masters. But the CEOs need to keep their vacation houses heated in the event of an impromptu weekend getaway so who are we to argue?

There are so many faults with his idea of what the internet is like that I'm glad he's gone. Net neutrality is important. To harp on the obvious, besides the fact few places have more than two, maybe three choices for internet access, often in collusion to keep the cost artificially high, we might have a better internet infrastructure in the United States.

Saying we're fine as we are or need less options is like saying that it was okay for monopolies to exist and control the costs (always inflated) and stagnate in their innovation (always "just enough").

Third, if there had been a problem there were laws already on the books that would have addressed the problem.

There wasn't a problem before the rules and there's not a problem with any danger of a closed Internet in this country after the rules. For those who think the rules have preserved an open Internet, that's sort of like a rooster taking credit for the sunrise.... "But did that come at the expense of deploying fiber because fiber is subject to the net neutrality rules while wireless is not? We don't know the answer to that, those are questions I'd like to have answered."

He seems to contradict himself here - we dont need the rules because there's already rules to cover it, BUT the companies aren't investing in wired infrastructure because of the rules (which are redundant, according to him).

Additionally, if these rules aren't needed, and are redundant anyway, then these Net Neutrality rules should not deter investment in wired.

I'm really saddened that an FCC commissioner is not able to make a coherent, logically consistent argument for something that he apparently believes in so much.

...eliminating the regulatory barriers that slow down broadband deployment.

Because the private sector always does better without regulation - just ask the banks. More seriously, can he point to any case where regulation led to poorer telecommunication services (other than state laws sponsored by industry that block municipalities from providing services to their citizens)?

Of course, his comments have probably ensured he gets a well-paid job in the industry. "I'm one of you guys, I don't like gov'mnt tellin' us what to do".

...eliminating the regulatory barriers that slow down broadband deployment.

Because the private sector always does better without regulation - just ask the banks. More seriously, can he point to any case where regulation led to poorer telecommunication services (other than state laws sponsored by industry that block municipalities from providing services to their citizens)?

Of course, his comments have probably ensured he gets a well-paid job in the industry. "I'm one of you guys, I don't like gov'mnt tellin' us what to do".

The issue at hand - at least as far as I understand American politics - has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of telecommunications services. The issue at hand is the nebulous concept of "freedom." The freedom in question is not that of the individual consumer to access whatever services they want but rather the freedom of an individual to form a company and set rules within his company however he chooses.

For the most part, it seems that issues of "freedom" as defined above are generally considered to be more pressing than the "freedom" of individuals to purchase a service or utilitse the service they purchased however they choose. This goes back to property rights.

If you purchase a tangible object then there is a tie to property rights. If you purchase a service this is generally closer to "licensing;" the service is still "owned" by the individual or company providing it. You have to abide by the rules set forth by the owner.

Everything - quite literally everything - as far as I am able to tell about American politics goes right back to that one single concept: ownership. The rights of owners seem to trump all in that culture; the only real question is "who is the owner."

Concepts like "the quality of telecommunications service" don't have roots in ownership. They have roots in "the common good." The common good is something that just doesn't play well in the US, regardless of whether or not the industry in question is telecommunications, health care or anything else you care to name.

"Freedom" appears to mean "protection of the things I own." It is distinct from "liberty" which is "the right to do as I choose without interference." While both concepts are used and abused with abandon, "freedom" trumps "liberty" almost every time. How much that is a good or bad thing seems to depend entirely on whether or not you actually have any "freedom" to defend.

The issue at hand - at least as far as I understand American politics - has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of telecommunications services. The issue at hand is the nebulous concept of "freedom." The freedom in question is not that of the individual consumer to access whatever services they want but rather the freedom of an individual to form a company and set rules within his company however he chooses.

For the most part, it seems that issues of "freedom" as defined above are generally considered to be more pressing than the "freedom" of individuals to purchase a service or utilitse the service they purchased however they choose. This goes back to property rights.

If you purchase a tangible object then there is a tie to property rights. If you purchase a service this is generally closer to "licensing;" the service is still "owned" by the individual or company providing it. You have to abide by the rules set forth by the owner.

Everything - quite literally everything - as far as I am able to tell about American politics goes right back to that one single concept: ownership. The rights of owners seem to trump all in that culture; the only real question is "who is the owner."

Concepts like "the quality of telecommunications service" don't have roots in ownership. They have roots in "the common good." The common good is something that just doesn't play well in the US, regardless of whether or not the industry in question is telecommunications, health care or anything else you care to name.

"Freedom" appears to mean "protection of the things I own." It is distinct from "liberty" which is "the right to do as I choose without interference." While both concepts are used and abused with abandon, "freedom" trumps "liberty" almost every time. How much that is a good or bad thing seems to depend entirely on whether or not you actually have any "freedom" to defend.

This is a very, very interesting argument. I will have to think about it for a while. Thanks for writing it.

No, Mr. McDowell, the FCC's biggest recent failure was the simple act of having you as a commissioner. Bubye dinosaur. Someday, someone will dig up your coal and burn it, while warming their hands and marvelling that once long ago a beast like you existed, before net-neutrality was made a constitutional amendment.

The issue at hand - at least as far as I understand American politics - has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of telecommunications services. The issue at hand is the nebulous concept of "freedom." The freedom in question is not that of the individual consumer to access whatever services they want but rather the freedom of an individual to form a company and set rules within his company however he chooses.

As an American, I'd take a slightly different approach and say that the most crucial "freedom" from the politicians' standpoint is that of a corporate entity to take whatever steps its executives think might help it reduce competition and/or extract more money from human beings.

As an American, I'd take a slightly different approach and say that the most crucial "freedom" from the politicians' standpoint is that of a corporate entity to take whatever steps its executives think might help it reduce competition and/or extract more money from human beings.

I actually think it's a more fundamental part of the culture than that, sir. I admit, my argument isn't fully formed here – it's a concept I'm really just starting to lay the foundations for – but it seems to me that it applies to all aspects of American culture.

Americans defend corporate rights in polls as well as in congress. There are lots of pro 2nd amendment folks out there who are not bananas guy-who-runs-the-NRA crazy who believe the right to defend their homes, property and so forth is important.

The general public supports increased policing and "tough on crime" measures almost unquestioningly. "Anti-terrorism" sells anything, from pointless (and potentially dangerous) perv scanners to warrantless wiretapping without making a peep in the national discourse. (Outside of a few fringe blogs; but let's face it, Ars Technia's entire US readership is functionally irrelevant on a national level.)

Strong copyright measures see massive popular support despite a growing reformist culture. People argue the right of cable companies to bundle channels or telecoms companies to filter content. This isn't a question of "the overwhelming majority of the public believes something different from the politicians" there is significant debate about all of these topics amongst regular people on the street.

Put simply: average Americans support strong property rights. They support these strong property rights for corporations. I suspect – but I cannot confirm – that this is due to two things:

1) Corporate rights have strong support because individuals are sold on the idea that one day they too will be able to start a company and have "freedom" worth defending.

2) Corporate rights have strong support because individuals believe that it is a required trade-off in order to have strong property rights for themselves.

I'd love to go all conspiracy theory here and say it was the plutarchy against the people, but I believe that the American people are entirely complicity in the creation of this aspect of their culture. Again, I have a lot of research to do before I can really take the argument further, but I suspect there is a kernel of truth here. The country was started by people who wanted protection for what they perceived to be their property.

It seems plausible that this foundational concept – one that formed the basis of all the US' early laws – should persist to this day. Given the strong puritan and protestant influences in US history it would also make sense that the self-restraint, respect for authority and a certain downplaying of individual independence would also be present. Enough perhaps to make "freedom" trump "liberty" on a regular enough basis to make foreigners like me take notice.

The bigger question is; how is any of this useful? Maybe we can find a way not to argue net neutrality as a "liberty" item? Maybe there is a way to argue it as a "freedom" item? "Ownership" of your own content? The right to control what you "own", even if it is using someone else's infrastructure? Unsure, and it's a little to late to reliably dig up answers on this. Maybe someone else will before I get back to this thread...

Let me rephrase that again, Mr. McDowell: per your August 21, 2012 FCC report -- One Hundred and Nineteen Million American citizens still lack broadband Internet service - either due to availability or cost.

That's a massive number -- regardless of what's being counted. In this case we're counting People, Humans; call them Individuals if it helps that number sink in.

The FCC's 2006-2011 Strategic Plan listed six goals, one of which speaks directly to Broadband:

"All Americans should have affordable access to robust and reliable broadband products and services. Regulatory policies must promote technological neutrality, competition, investment, and innovation to ensure that broadband service providers have sufficient incentives to develop and offer such products and services."

Before you and Mr. Genachowski get too self-congratulatory, I suspect there might be a one or two lay citizens (remember them? I wasn't sure, you didn't mention them or their interests in your parting soliloquy) who think you, as an entrusted Public body, have just plain let them down; that the well-heeled, self-serving, boisterous politicking minority have usurped the quiet majority, disenfranchised, and the larger Public Interest.

Do take heart, however. The pleasant parting salutes from AT&T, Verizon, and National Cable & Telecommunications Association should help assuage those plebeian voices. Clearly this non-voting constituency felt well represented, serviced, and coincidentally like you, saw "no market failure that needed to be addressed." Well done, gentlemen, well done.

The layers should be owned by separate companies. This will ensure that all content is avable to everyone. As soon as you allow integration, there is a risk of limiting access. I fully expect that Comcast will at some point limit competitors access to NBC/Universal content.

When asked if net neutrality has caused any harm to businesses, McDowell said it's not clear yet. There's been no obvious harm, he said, because the FCC hasn't yet taken any enforcement actions against companies for violating the rules. However, he said capital expenditures in broadband have remained flat even as the economy grew slightly between 2010 and 2011. It's too early to tell if that is in any way connected to net neutrality affecting wired service but not wireless.

If anyone is making that argument, they have a terminal case of rectal cranial inversion.

"What I opposed really focused on, first of all, there is no market failure that needed to be addressed."

That is the real concern I see in the way he thinks. Regulations should exist to prevent problems before they occur. Look how difficult it is now to put the genie back in the bottle with the banks. The government watchdogs defending a "forgiveness not permission" model is troubling.

The issue at hand - at least as far as I understand American politics - has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of telecommunications services. The issue at hand is the nebulous concept of "freedom." The freedom in question is not that of the individual consumer to access whatever services they want but rather the freedom of an individual to form a company and set rules within his company however he chooses.

For the most part, it seems that issues of "freedom" as defined above are generally considered to be more pressing than the "freedom" of individuals to purchase a service or utilitse the service they purchased however they choose. This goes back to property rights.

If you purchase a tangible object then there is a tie to property rights. If you purchase a service this is generally closer to "licensing;" the service is still "owned" by the individual or company providing it. You have to abide by the rules set forth by the owner.

Everything - quite literally everything - as far as I am able to tell about American politics goes right back to that one single concept: ownership. The rights of owners seem to trump all in that culture; the only real question is "who is the owner."

Concepts like "the quality of telecommunications service" don't have roots in ownership. They have roots in "the common good." The common good is something that just doesn't play well in the US, regardless of whether or not the industry in question is telecommunications, health care or anything else you care to name.

"Freedom" appears to mean "protection of the things I own." It is distinct from "liberty" which is "the right to do as I choose without interference." While both concepts are used and abused with abandon, "freedom" trumps "liberty" almost every time. How much that is a good or bad thing seems to depend entirely on whether or not you actually have any "freedom" to defend.

This is a very, very interesting argument. I will have to think about it for a while. Thanks for writing it.

It certainly appears spot on with the arguments used by the telecoms, in particular when they are deliberately degrading competing services and customer's ability to use the connection. To an extent, it's a legitimate argument: you're paying them for the use of their network infrastructure, but it's still their infrastructure to decide how to use and ensure performance.

The issue arises from the conflict of interest allowed by the deregulation in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. By allowing the infrastructure company to also sell the content that infrastructure carries they are given an active incentive to make only their stuff work and to outright deny anything that they could conceivably charge more for (such as the provision in pretty much all US TOS that prohibit running a server or using dynamic DNS tools).

If they were still legally required to be separate, as they were after the breakup of AT&T and before the Telecommunications Act of 1996, then their ownership rights would be exerted to the BENEFIT of the customer, because it's in the company's best interest to provide the best speeds they can with the least restriction of use necessary to ensure stable performance on the network. By forcing the content and service aspects to be different companies from the ones providing network infrastructure you provide an active DISincentive to block content or restrict its use, because doing so would make their product less useful, and so drive people to find alternatives (should they exist). Even if alternatives don't exist, there's little incentive to lock things down because there's no money in it; they aren't the ones providing tv content in this hypothetical, so what do they stand to gain by blocking TV content? Arguably they could try charging by breaking it down service-by-service, but doing so would be so complicated to implement, never mind for customers to understand, that it would create further disincentive.

So yeah, it's a very good point about ownership. It also points to the real issue, and that's ownership of both the infrastructure AND the content passing over it by the same company.

The issue at hand - at least as far as I understand American politics - has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of telecommunications services. The issue at hand is the nebulous concept of "freedom." The freedom in question is not that of the individual consumer to access whatever services they want but rather the freedom of an individual to form a company and set rules within his company however he chooses.

As an American, I'd take a slightly different approach and say that the most crucial "freedom" from the politicians' standpoint is that of a corporate entity to take whatever steps its executives think might help it reduce competition and/or extract more money from human beings.

That is a biased viewpoint. You took a very valid and objective argument and turned it into an American "I hate gubment" argument without actually countering anything he said.

Astlor is 100% right. As individuals, American like personal freedom and see all these pro-corporate decisions as an assault on their freedom. But as a group, Americans are anti-common good, as they have been trained by decades of corporate politics, so the whole thing turns into a huge clusterfuck of cognitive dissonance.

What a fool. I have fiber now. It's grossly overpriced. Why does he act like increased fiber deployments that can be saddled with throttling or outright blocks on competitive services, all for insane prices is a good thing? It's no different than the situation with LTE. They call it a sign that the market is so competitive and doesn't need regulation, ignoring the fact that it costs 100 bucks a month and will cost 30 bucks a month in the rest of the world. I'd rather have cable broadband and 3G speeds for sane prices than fiber and LTE that costs as much as a car payment and is saddled with anti-competitive crap.

Sounds like his market views and loyalty to lobbies are just as broken as the rest of his party's peers'.

Exactly ! Their ideas of Free Market are a big screwjob to the Common Consumer.

"For instance, the Comcast/NBCUniversal merger had a lot of conditions in there that were not related at all to the transaction."

I wonder if anyone ever told McDowell the merger had a lot of "unrelated" conditions because merging content with delivery reeks of unnecessarily reduced competition and centralized control without cost reductions nor benefits to consumers?

Finally someone pointing out that the FCC doesn't have the authority to do what it did with Net Neutrality.

I'm all for it - but lets do it the right way for pete's sake.

On a side note, there wasn't a problem? Maybe not . . . but there was about to be a big one.

The argument for Net Neutrality implies the system needs to change, i.e. that there "isn't enough" neutrality currently. Republicans think letting business take care of itself unfettered, sans regulation, is best. Status Quo.

Before you and Mr. Genachowski get too self-congratulatory, I suspect there might be a one or two lay citizens (remember them? I wasn't sure, you didn't mention them or their interests in your parting soliloquy) who think you, as an entrusted Public body, have just plain let them down; that the well-heeled, self-serving, boisterous politicking minority have usurped the quiet majority, disenfranchised, and the larger Public Interest.

While I don't agree with everything he said, I am glad to see one of the republicans in the fcc willing to talk to ars for a change (it feels like the first time for some reason). It's just a shame that he waited until he was out the door to do so.

The issue at hand - at least as far as I understand American politics - has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of telecommunications services. The issue at hand is the nebulous concept of "freedom." The freedom in question is not that of the individual consumer to access whatever services they want but rather the freedom of an individual to form a company and set rules within his company however he chooses.

As an American, I'd take a slightly different approach and say that the most crucial "freedom" from the politicians' standpoint is that of a corporate entity to take whatever steps its executives think might help it reduce competition and/or extract more money from human beings.

That is a biased viewpoint. You took a very valid and objective argument and turned it into an American "I hate gubment" argument without actually countering anything he said.

Astlor is 100% right. As individuals, American like personal freedom and see all these pro-corporate decisions as an assault on their freedom. But as a group, Americans are anti-common good, as they have been trained by decades of corporate politics, so the whole thing turns into a huge clusterfuck of cognitive dissonance.

You just did the same thing you accused xyzzymagic of, but replaced "gubmint" with corporate politics, which he was arguing are one in the same anyway!

The point isn't that we're (I'm American) "trained by decades of..." -- it's that the protection of property rights above all else is part of our culture. While it's not at the top of my personal priorities, I can't disagree that it seems to be the case for many of my fellow citizens. Here's hoping we get more municipal information infrastructure setup. Then that can be "our" property we're trying to protect from third party interests.

You just did the same thing you accused xyzzymagic of, but replaced "gubmint" with corporate politics, which he was arguing are one in the same anyway!

The point isn't that we're (I'm American) "trained by decades of..." -- it's that the protection of property rights above all else is part of our culture. While it's not at the top of my personal priorities, I can't disagree that it seems to be the case for many of my fellow citizens. Here's hoping we get more municipal information infrastructure setup. Then that can be "our" property we're trying to protect from third party interests.

edit: confused Cartigan and xyzzymagic. Fixed.

I didn't do the same thing he was doing because he was personifying what I am talking about.My point was American want protection of the individual, personal rights on an individual scale but on a group scale will sell out their personal protection for the idea of protecting their individual, personal rights. That doesn't make sense as written and that's my point. It doesn't make sense. Compare what <political group> wants compared to what individuals that group consists of wants. It's easiest to see with conservative groups, honestly. In the group dynamic, Americans want to protect the idea of freedom - which usually leads to saying "corporations should be able to do whatever they want!" As individuals, they want their freedoms protected - "corporations are stepping on my personal freedoms!"

Local municipalities give even less of a fuck about you than the feds when big corporate money is on the table.That's part of the idea small government myth. Small government is just as much affected by big corporate money as big government but you see it a lot easier because it directly impacts you.

...eliminating the regulatory barriers that slow down broadband deployment.

Because the private sector always does better without regulation - just ask the banks. More seriously, can he point to any case where regulation led to poorer telecommunication services (other than state laws sponsored by industry that block municipalities from providing services to their citizens)?

Of course, his comments have probably ensured he gets a well-paid job in the industry. "I'm one of you guys, I don't like gov'mnt tellin' us what to do".

The issue at hand - at least as far as I understand American politics - has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of telecommunications services. The issue at hand is the nebulous concept of "freedom." The freedom in question is not that of the individual consumer to access whatever services they want but rather the freedom of an individual to form a company and set rules within his company however he chooses.

For the most part, it seems that issues of "freedom" as defined above are generally considered to be more pressing than the "freedom" of individuals to purchase a service or utilitse the service they purchased however they choose. This goes back to property rights.

If you purchase a tangible object then there is a tie to property rights. If you purchase a service this is generally closer to "licensing;" the service is still "owned" by the individual or company providing it. You have to abide by the rules set forth by the owner.

Everything - quite literally everything - as far as I am able to tell about American politics goes right back to that one single concept: ownership. The rights of owners seem to trump all in that culture; the only real question is "who is the owner."

Concepts like "the quality of telecommunications service" don't have roots in ownership. They have roots in "the common good." The common good is something that just doesn't play well in the US, regardless of whether or not the industry in question is telecommunications, health care or anything else you care to name.

"Freedom" appears to mean "protection of the things I own." It is distinct from "liberty" which is "the right to do as I choose without interference." While both concepts are used and abused with abandon, "freedom" trumps "liberty" almost every time. How much that is a good or bad thing seems to depend entirely on whether or not you actually have any "freedom" to defend.

This was an amazing perspective. As an attorney (who has dealt with the FCC numerous times fighting for regulation and enforcement of existing regulation against wireless carriers) I think that this is just a phenomenal argument in terms of the perception of government regulation. We really need a paradigm shift in America, where we stop thinking of freedom in 18th century terms. This seems universally applicable, whether you're talking about telecoms, the gun industry, Wall Street....

I may cherry pick some quotes and/or arguments to use in some of documents and articles (all credit where credit is due). I just wanted to say, that your analysis was eloquent, well spoken and sadly, more true than not.

Well, all the "promoting" and "encouraging" is supposed to happen via free market mechanisms in case you missed how America was built. Now of course there isn't enough competitors (I think economists call for at least 7) out there and the whole issue of natural monopolies that makes free markets theory inapplicable to telecoms.

What a fool. I have fiber now. It's grossly overpriced. Why does he act like increased fiber deployments that can be saddled with throttling or outright blocks on competitive services, all for insane prices is a good thing?

He never said it was a "good thing". If I missed it, please feel free to quote him. He said the FCC has no statutory authority to impose Net Neutrality rules. We'll see if the courts agree with him.

When asked if net neutrality has caused any harm to businesses, McDowell said it's not clear yet. There's been no obvious harm, he said, because the FCC hasn't yet taken any enforcement actions against companies for violating the rules. However, he said capital expenditures in broadband have remained flat even as the economy grew slightly between 2010 and 2011. It's too early to tell if that is in any way connected to net neutrality affecting wired service but not wireless.

If anyone is making that argument, they have a terminal case of rectal cranial inversion.

Do you have any documented cases where companies have violated the rules? If so, have you referred those cases to the FCC's Enforcement Bureau?